[inaudible conversations] >> good? i am not going to be you the rules and regulations, and i have forgotten, my name is jonathan woodward and i am here ostensibly from the washington post though i left a long time ago. 18 years ago my wife and i were living on capitol hill with my

stepdaughter at the national geographic and we went to dinner, and that is a technical problem, someone else will have 2 cope with. my stepdaughter was working at the national geographic and the next day at dinner time, this lovely young woman shows up, my wife and i immediately chatted with her and she is still lovely and young but now she is one of the most effective, accomplished and successful writers of serious nonfiction, good to see you again. >> very good to see you, thank you. [applause] >> could i say briefly what an

incredible honor it is to sit here with jonathan yardley who is a huge figure in the world of journalism and the world of books and buy some crazy chance if you don't know his work i urge you to find it. he is absolutely brilliant so it is humbling to me. i should be interviewing him because he is a more interesting figure than i am. >> host: flattery will get you everywhere. let's get to winston churchill, a couple questions how you got to this point in your life. you are at national geographic how many years? >> guest: six years. >> host: a reputation -- you were a writer. what influence on your own

evolution as a writer? >> guest: my real education happened at national geographic. i learned so much about storytelling, the fact that the world is full of fascinating people, fascinating events and stories. most of all i learned about research and learned that you need to dig deeply, take time to understand it and find the people who really know the subject you are going to look into. at national geographic, you are working on something and a river, another day, it fluctuated. but the one consistent thing is there is always somebody who knows the subject, knows it really well and spend most of

his or her life studying it and you need to find that person and making your friend. >> host: how did it come to you to write about the river of doubt? you were not a trained historian the subject involve travel to a dangerous place, feelings of your than your own. tell us about the challenges and apprehensions? >> guest: i was having a story with my friend james chase, an extraordinary man, an extraordinary election where roosevelt tried to regain the presidency and lost, have you heard about this in the amazon after that election? i had read about theodore roosevelt but because it was after his active political career, i started researching

it, went back to national geographic, a great library there, the library of congress, i was stunned because there is murder, drowning, the rain forest, roosevelt nearly took his own life, the amazon is the richest ecosystem on earth, something i would love to write about so i was hooked right away but it is daunting to take on theodore roosevelt. >> host: take on a book. >> guest: exactly. i was really excited about it. there was so much to work with and my years at national geographic, i knew how to do research, the only thing i was confident about. >> host: you watched the young one. >> guest: i went to this river which is incredibly remote, did

some research in rio, northwestern brazil, rented a plane, hired a pilot, and flew for hours over and broken rain forest and -- >> host: this raises the question where did you get the money to do that? >> guest: did it in advance, from doubleday, got an agent and james j's sent my proposal, very generous man, he passed away right before the book came out, really difficult for me, doubleday gave me this great advance, a three part, one part when you sell it, one part when you turn in the manuscript, i had that money and that is how i use it. >> host: i would have thought you were on the plane yourself.

>> guest: no. >> host: in river of doubt and your other books, you seem to deal with a great many people and travel to a great many places, afraid of nothing. >> host: that is not true. >> guest: i have a lot of fears. my fear is overshadowed by my interest. >> host: did you go to south africa? >> guest: i went to where the mine was. the whole where it was. >> host: you have written about teddy roosevelt, james garfield, what drew you to their stories? >> guest: i love to read

biographies but as a writer, i like to tell a tighter story, more personal story where i can spend 5 years focusing and digging in, and what i hope is eliminating, the time in which we live, and often when we look at history, we are drawn to a big public moment, and infamy, what interests me are the more private moments of struggle when someone like james garfield or terrified, instant churchill, and in those moments it is true for all of us that we all share, and your true nature is

revealed. >> host: specifically what drew you to winston churchill? >> guest: he actually began history in south africa covering the national congress, and 25 years ago mentioned to me do you know that winston churchill is a prisoner of war in south africa, i thought you were -- how do i not know this, stayed with me all these years and after i turned in the manuscript for my second book, do you have any ideas for the next book? winston churchill -- yes.

>> host: reading your book, nearly disastrous war, and you were writing that. >> guest: nothing was in the back of my head. i could see the connection. and kansas city, and day today life like laundry and dinner plans and an office outside, when i go into the office, and it is a time machine, going back in time and immerse myself in documents that i gathered from pictures and maps, i am only

thinking about this moment in history. wikipedia you are drawn to the 19th and early 20th centuries. >> i did not think this is what i want to write about. it is evocative. of this time period, and what interests me is there are so many primary source material, enormous wealth, and newspaper articles, the kind of writing i do, narrative nonfiction, you have to have that, and not a model a huge amount, there are times i am working on a book and

research takes me, and never get through all this. >> i have a project more ambitious than yours. wikipedia >> guest: you have to with letdown and have to be tough about it. i hope the reader in the book, you have to truly understand before you can begin writing about it, whether it makes it into the book, the sense that i understand it is much better. >> host: what about the 19th and early 20th centuries, it is a lost world, a period when the world began to change in a dramatic way.

more than it is now. >> guest: what interests me, the world was changing so quickly, every conceivable way but also our knowledge of the world, this is the gilded age of exploration and that is fascinating. churchill was right in the middle of that, right on the cusp of this incredible change and it is fascinating to see it through his eyes. >> host: you wrote, he faced the prisoner of war camp and face dangerous challenges, grand adventure, the notion of british ideas of war as romance, strong undercurrent in your book that we in manchester in the introduction to churchill's

moire takes experiences in india and south africa, glorification of war. do you agree with that judgment? >> guest: i do. at that time the british empire was huge. it ruled 450 million people, they were spread all over the world and spread very thin. constantly putting down -- these colonial wars, all about gallantry and they hated losing, they thought the khakis made them look like bus drivers and the boer war when it began they were still fighting. >> host: the boer war was a prelude to world war i. >> guest: it was the beginning of modern warfare, not that many americans know much about the

boer war but it was the first guerrilla fighting, concentration camps, modernization of weapons. it was different from the british army, prepared for world war i. >> host: most of us know very little about them. is their presence in south africa still very strong? >> guest: fortunately ing's are changing a lot. the boars were interesting people, very independent, very religious and unabashedly racist. you may have heard of the great tracking 1835, hundreds of miles

into the interior, set off primarily by the fact that two years earlier the british empire abolished slavery and even though the british empire promised people, native africans and indian population that they won the war, it would be better for them as we all know, much longer than anyone would have hoped. of course there is still a presence but nelson mandela was a huge breaking point and things have changed quite a bit. >> host: tell us about churchill, he did change, the experience in south africa changed, it would be naked ambition. >> guest: absolutely. he was a bundle, the one description -- >> feelings about his father?

>> guest: some of it. >> host: naked ambition is prominent, not really all that common in that particular class. >> guest: looked down upon and i thought that was the american in him, the beautiful socialite was american. and he told his mother this is a pushing agent we must push with the best and was very connected, all these powerful men, adored her and always having her, have this get into an assignment, he thought that was the best way to win fame and propel myself to political power, the glittering gateway to distinction. >> his first love, pamela, and

rival them. what was wrong or what was right? >> guest: not only ambitious but incredibly arrogant. i found it again and again, and different newspaper articles, winston churchill, cannot stand the kid. he drives me crazy. >> host: in prison in south africa. he went to south africa with what? cases of champagne? >> guest: and his valet and a

10-year-old. he is willing to risk his life but doesn't want to be uncivilized while he is at it but what was interesting about him at this point in his life, if you look at pictures of him you almost don't recognize him. when we think of winston churchill we think of the older winston churchill, overweight and older and a cigar, he is young with red hair and energetic and he is the one throwing himself, and not the winston churchill, it is fascinating to read the letters at that time, he wrote to pamela cloud, he ran for parliament before the boer war and lost but during the election, loving all these opportunities to be on stage and he writes to her, i

don't know what will happen with the election or what the outcome will be, and growing powers. >> host: what happened between him and pamela? >> guest: he was in love with her. he met her in india, and british india, toast of london when she went back, and wanted to marry her, and didn't think that churchill would amount to anything. [inaudible] >> host: the wall street journal

described this quote, popular historian, that is a compliment. a phrase in popular history has always been slightly pejorative and condescending even though the best history written these days is by non-academic, david mccullough or your self. i am sure you are pleased to be put in that company. >> guest: i feel incredibly fortunate to do what i do. every day i go to work, my job is read, to deal -- delve into fascinating stories, i know a lot of historians, read a lot of academic history, not what i do. i hope that is a collaborative thing.

i say i thought i hated history. was never interested in history and read something, i was hooked and a lot of times they say it made me want to know more. and it is a conduit for people who don't like history. and fascinating stories they absolutely love. >> host: popular historian stepped in, left by the decline of history in the academic club. as the academic historian digs more deeply into specialized areas and patents, the field is left open. >> guest: that is what i want to

do. >> host: microphones in the middle of each aisle. >> part of the time i teach history. i appreciate your books, history to me is very exciting. you take colorful figures that you have written about, dealing with churchill and the boer war, the primary sources, a lot of what churchill wrote, and put himself in the best light. how do you deal with that? >> guest: most of the time he wasn't alone, the way he was captured for those who don't know he went to the boer war to cover the journalists, he was on

soon after he arrived on an armored train that was attacked by the boars so his good friend invited him along, and he was there and many other men, i have their accounts of it as well. the same when he was in the pow camp. when he was on the run heated in a coal mine shaft, the men wrote about it and the only thing i found that he got wrong and he was very insistent about this, organize the attack on this train named louis bowtie, became the first prime minister of south africa, he was a young, charismatic, exciting general,

they became friends later in life and churchill always insisted those who captured him, later churchill's son started researching the biography of his father and he said i have done the research and don't think it could have been -- personally captured you. churchill said it was, end of discussion. but it wasn't. he was there and organized it but thought everything and talked about it but that is the main thing. >> this is a general historical question, in terms of deciding what to use in your research and what you don't use when you do your research. how do historical writers avoid

revising history to their own liking? how do you avoid revising history to your own personal opinions? >> guest: i do a lot of research and don't come at it with an opinion, i wrote a book about james garfield, i came to admire him, i was wanting to write about alexander graham bell, i found out he invented something called -- and into his first term. and and he was a decent, modest

human being, and that he is an extraordinary man. i took them as i found him and that is what i tried to do with all these books. >> i know what he is complaining about. in his first multivolume incomplete history of the roosevelt administration and jack kennedy, a very distinct ideological point of view, may have been bending history to suit his ideology. >> guest: absolutely. of course it does. >> my question is about destiny of the republic. i came away can we missed out on a potentially great president. i want your thoughts on if

garfield had not been assassinated what type of president do you think he would have been and would he have been different from other 19th century presidents? >> i agree. i believe he would have been one of our great presidents and i think he is an inspiration to the country because he came from such poverty and seemed to bring the country together in a way that was in sharp contrast to what happened after lincoln's assassination divided the country even more and it is because so many admired him and placed so much hope into him. he was a progressive thinker for that time. you can imagine he didn't want to be president. was forced, shoved into this

situation. because of that he was uniquely powerful because he wasn't beholden to anyone. had not made promises or sacrifices because it is not something he hungered for. used to call it presidential fever and he saw it around him. i think that would have made him a uniquely powerful president and quite a loss to the country. >> we were talking before, i came to the end of destiny of the republic preventing a sense loss for this man never had an opportunity to be the president. >> you made a brief reference to the british policy of concentration camps before the war which is one of the more shameful episodes in the british empire's history and its impact on women and children and other noncombatants. did churchill ever acknowledged

that? did that affect him in any way? >> guest: what affected him was his own imprisonment. it affected him deeply. he never forgot it. even though it was on the other end of the spectrum from the concentration camps, for those who don't know, the british had gotten into the war thinking it would last a couple months, starting in october and out by christmas and lasted three years so by the end they were desperate to get out and did some pretty horrible things, resorted to a different policy, setting up concentration camps for women and children supporting these men who were fighting in the field, that i wouldn't have any support and it was disastrous, native africans forced into concentration camps and even more died in the boars.

churchill's imprisonment of the boars were either to show the british that they were civilized. the british dismissed them as being backwards. they allowed incredible leniency but churchill couldn't stand the idea of being captured. he said he hated that period in his life more than he had ever hated any other period in his whole life and he was desperate to get out. he remembered that so later on in public life, becoming health secretary it was one of his missions to show compassion to his prisoners, he made sure they had access to books and the outdoors and could exercise because he said whether or not they are guilty of a horrendous crime, they are still human

beings. >> i would like to say your first two books are wonderful, some of the best i ever read. my question is early on in the book there is a passing reference to teddy roosevelt and the other journalists met him in cuba, i couldn't believe how close this two seemed. could you contrast teddy roosevelt and winston churchill? >> guest: throughout the process i kept thinking how much they remind me of each other, how many similarities, young, ambitious men, very arrogant, drive everybody around them crazy, incredibly well read, very talented writers, had so much in common and that is why they didn't like each other, too

similar, and definitely wasn't a love affair. >> since churchill went to south africa as a journalist, had certain preconceived notions about the british empire and after experiencing the boer war, how did his view change about the british empire? did he realize, you see evidence that he realized -- and if he did, some of the most amazing things like the battle of london, when hitler was trying to take over england and was so stalwart that i don't ever want to be dominated again. did you see evidence of him changing his thinking towards what the british empire was and how he wanted it to fit into the

world? >> guest: winston churchill was far from a perfect man. one thing about him is he was an unabashed imperialist, very proud of the british empire and its standing in the world and part of his mission to keep it intact. i don't think the boer war changed that. i think on the opposite side, no one thought harder than he did during the war, no one was quicker to reach out the hand of friendship afterward that he was magnanimous, and during the boer war it got him in trouble with his countrymen and it was true later in his life.

that was a constant, at that time and for many years, and imperialist. >> it was an extraordinary book, how much i enjoyed reading it. as i was reading it i totally marveled at the conversations the characters had, as if you had a tape recorder in your room. i was wondering what you drew upon similar to what they were saying to each other. >> guest: my father said the same thing after he read this book, the dialogue you had is like a novel or something. very important to me that everybody knows that this is all absolutely actual, i get that

dialogue from letters, accounts they wrote themselves. i was talking to churchill and he said this or that and that is where it comes from. there is a trend in narrative nonfiction that we just get, in general these were my sources, but in my book you can look it up, i use notes, you can say how does she know he said that? turned to the notes and you can look it up yourself. that is something that is really important to me, going back to primary source material, takes a long time before i will commit to a subject even if i think it is a fantastic story that there have been stories that broke my heart because i wanted to tell them, and source material to work with to have that dialogue,

have those details to bring a story alive and so unless i do i won't commit to it and i had a wealth of information to work with for this book. >> you may have touched on this earlier concerning the river of doubt. as i was reading it i was amazed, why theodore roosevelt was doing this? why do you believe -- what was his motivation for doing it? i don't want to give my own opinion. >> host: theodore roosevelt lost the election of 1912 and goes to south america and goes down this incredibly dangerous rapid choked rivers that no one knows

-- the river of doubt, because no one knew where it would take them and what was around each bend and the reason he did it was he was theodore roosevelt and winston churchill would have done it too. he had won throughout his life and he loses this contact and is a pariah for the first time in his life, put woodrow wilson, a democrat in the white house, splits the republican vote, and he is devastated. to go on a speaking tour, incredible sentiment in many books, so he is going to take another collecting trip, he gets there and he lets this friend of his -- hired on arctic explorer

to plan this trip to the amazon so they are not even prepared for a collecting trip. and map and unmapped river and theodore roosevelt is going to say no to that you and this outrageously dangerous trip. >> talk a little bit about how you reconstructed the events after president garfield was shot, particularly the medical treatment he received? of the doctors had left him alone he might've lived. >> guest: right, he would have, for those who don't know garfield was shot in a train station where the national gallery now sits and to my outrage there is no plaque, no notice at all an american president was shot here but the

bullet that hit him in the right side of his back didn't hit vital organs or his spinal cord. 's injuries were far less severe than reagan's when reagan was shot. he had 12 doctors, especially this beautifully named doctor doctor willard whose first name was doctor, repeatedly inserted fingers and instruments in his back probing for this bullet, joseph lister of listerine discovered antiseptic 16 years or earlier and spoke to american doctors, it is sickening to watch this through the lens of 135 years happening to this extraordinary man. i went -- to the kind of research at the library of congress even though garfield

was president for almost 18 years, a lot of people surrounding it. the autopsy report there, more than that i held in my gloved hand a section of garfield's spine with a red plastic pen going through where the bullet had gone through and it is stunning and also strangely they have the assassin's drawer because they have remains -- they have the remains of john wilkes booth, in the same drawer, a femur, anchor bone, a jar with a chunk of his brain, he was insane, mentally ill,

after he was executed they exhumed his body and wanted to study it. and physical signs of insanity, he cut up his brain and sent it to experts around the country and sent it back, and they still have it. >> started this program, the best status -- a 5-year project. thank you very much. [applause] to hear from colson

whitehead and susan flutie as well. but now we're joining on our booktv set by author and the five host, dana perino. here's her most recent book, "let me tell you about jasper: how my best friend became america's dog."